Legal Services Commissioner v Li

Link copied
Case Copied 65 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Li [2024] QCAT 444

PARTIES:
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(Applicant)

v
XIAOYU (LORRAINE) LI

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR 206-22

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2024

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Williams

Assisted by:
Mr Ross Perrett, Practitioner Panel Member
Mr Keith Revell, Lay Panel Member

ORDERS:

1.     The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of each of Charges 1 and 2 in the discipline application is found to constitute professional misconduct.

2.     The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.

3.     The Respondent not be granted a principal practising certificate before 1 September 2025. 

4.     The Respondent complete the QLS Remedial Ethics Course within 12 months of the Tribunal’s order, at her own expense.

5.     The Respondent complete, at her own expense, the QLS Practice Management Course within 12 months prior to any application for a principal practising certificate.

6.     The Respondent must include a copy of the Tribunal’s order and reasons, together with evidence of completing the QLS Remedial Ethics Course and the QLS Practice Management Course, when the Respondent first re-applies for a principal practising certificate.

7.     The Respondent pay the LSC’s costs of and incidental to the discipline application, to be assessed on the standard basis as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEEDINGS IN TRIBUNALS – where the respondent gave the QLS an undertaking that they will not make an application for a Principal Practising Certificate before a stipulated date – where the applicant alleges professional misconduct and/or unsatisfactory professional conduct by the respondent in respect of two contraventions of an undertaking given to the Queensland Law Society – whether the Respondent’s conduct is properly characterised as unsatisfactory professional conduct, professional misconduct or neither.

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – ORDERS – where the respondent’s conduct is found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct – where s 456 of the Legal Profession Act provides the Tribunal with a wide discretion to make any order the Tribunal thinks fit – whether orders made pursuant to s 456 of the Legal Profession Act are appropriate – consideration of the usual costs order pursuant to s 462(1) Legal Profession Act – whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ to support a costs order other than the usual costs order.

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 9, s 61, s 276(2)-(3), ss 418-420, s 437, s 453, s 456, s 462, s 656C

Attorney-General v Bax [1999] 2 Qd R 9.
Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis (2008) 250 ALR 555
Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1.
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
Brown v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian (2012) 10 ASTLR 164.
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Fisher [2021] NSWCATOD 73.
Council of the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Li and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] QCAT 444
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Legal Services Commissioner v Li involved the Legal Services Commissioner (LSC) bringing disciplinary proceedings against a legal practitioner in Queensland. The LSC alleged that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct and/or unsatisfactory professional conduct by contravening two undertakings given to the Queensland Law Society. The proceedings were heard by a Tribunal under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The main legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct, and if so, what appropriate orders should be made under section 456 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did indeed constitute professional misconduct. The Tribunal considered the gravity of the breaches, the respondent's lack of remorse, and the need to uphold the integrity of the legal profession. The Tribunal also considered the respondent's past unblemished record and her willingness to undertake further education as mitigating factors. Despite these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent's actions warranted a significant sanction to ensure public confidence in the legal profession. The Tribunal ordered a public reprimand, a suspension from obtaining a principal practising certificate until 1 September 2025, and the completion of specified professional development courses. The respondent was also ordered to include copies of the Tribunal’s order and evidence of course completion in any future application for a practising certificate. The Tribunal further directed that the respondent pay the LSC’s costs of the proceedings.

In summary, the Tribunal found the respondent's conduct to be professional misconduct and imposed appropriate disciplinary sanctions. The orders included a public reprimand, a suspension from obtaining a principal practising certificate, mandatory completion of professional development courses, and a requirement to include evidence of compliance with these orders in any future application for a practising certificate. The respondent was also ordered to pay the LSC’s costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent’s conduct identified in respect of each of Charges 1 and 2 in the discipline application is found to constitute professional misconduct.

2. The Respondent is publicly reprimanded.

3. The Respondent not be granted a principal practising certificate before 1 September 2025.

4. The Respondent complete the QLS Remedial Ethics Course within 12 months of the Tribunal’s order, at her own expense.

5. The Respondent complete, at her own expense, the QLS Practice Management Course within 12 months prior to any application for a principal practising certificate.

6. The Respondent must include a copy of the Tribunal’s order and reasons, together with evidence of completing the QLS Remedial Ethics Course and the QLS Practice Management Course, when the Respondent first re-applies for a principal practising certificate.

7. The Respondent pay the LSC’s costs of and incidental to the discipline application, to be assessed on the standard basis as if this were a proceeding before the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.